et ee eee - -
Attachment to Independent Case Review Report For CDRU # 32 Case file # 70-74575 .
Material Examiner: Malone (RQ)
Remarks: .
Result of trial or guilty plea is not known, no transcript.
CRM-22322 -
INDEPENDENT CASE REVIEW REPORT
Independent Review conducted by: Steve Robertson
Area(s) of Expertise: Hair and Fiber
Review commenced at: 9:45AM (Time), 11/05/01 (Date) ee
File #: 7170-74575
Laboratory #(s); 50923053
a
|
9 SL
Examiner(s) & Symbols Reviewed Not Reviewed Reviewed Not Reviewed RQ X Oo Oo oO WZ Oo X oO oO Oo oO g oO
pL D
Materials Reviewed
Trial testimony transcript(s) of: Not available
Testimony Date(s): Pages:
Laboratory Report(s):
Laboratory Number: 50923053 Date: Mar 4, 1986 Laboratory Number: Date: Laboratory Number: Date: Examiner Bench Notes of: | RQ and unknown technician Laboratory Number: |
Page I of 3
, Initials: Ie
CRM-22323
Was any other material reviewed? X Yes © No
If yes, please identify and/or describe the material: submitting agency letter dated 9/17/85
pli tcp ar re ~ Results of Review
File #: 70-74575 Item or Specimen # Reviewed: Q1-Q12, Q21-25, K1-K3, K6-K7
Review of Laboratory Report(s) and Bench Notes:
Note: Numbered comments are required below or on
1) Did the examiner perform the appropriate tests in a scientifically acceptable manner, based on the methods, protocols, and analytic techniques available at the time of the original examination(s)? aOYes ONo XO Unable to Determine
2) Are the examination results set forth in the laboratory report(s) supported and adequately documented in the bench notes? OYes XONo_~ © Unable to Determine
Sn eee ee Review of Testimony:
Note: Numbered comments are required below or on
XX0O Transcript not available.
3) Testimony consistent with the laboratory report(s)? O Yes GNo_- QO Unable to Determine 4) Testimony consistent with the bench notes? QO Yes ONo OJ Unable to Determine 5) Testimony within bounds of examiner's expertise? O Yes No O Unable to Determine
Page 2 of 3
Initials: Ny
_ Comments (Set forth by above question #, if applicable. Use “Additional Comments” Sheet, if needed)
i
File #: 70-74575
#1: With microscopic hair comparison, one cannot determine from the notes that the examination was conducted in an appropriate manner.
#2: Documentation is poor. The notes are not dated, are in pencil and not ink and abbreviations are used that are difficult to interpret. The technician's notes do not document the recovery of hair from the Q items. Pubic hairs from the Q7 bed sheet were recovered that are different from the victim's and the suspect's pubic hair, but these
were not reported. Head hairs from Q9 bed spread and Q12 pillowcase were recovered that are different from the
victim's and the suspect's pubic hair, but these were not reported.
a
a
a
Review completed at: 10:30 AM = (Time), 11/05/01 (Date) Total time spent conducting review (to nearest 1/4 hour): 0.75 hr.
I hereby certify that | conducted this review in an independent, unbiased manner and that the results of my review are fully documented on this report consisting of a total of 3 pages.
11/05/2001
(Signature) (Date)
Page 3 of 3
Initials: SHA :